The Ineffectiveness of Gun Control - Research Paper Example

? The Ineffectiveness of Gun Control Diamond Chandler Whenever there is a crime that involves the use of firearms, the argument is always forward that gun control should be increased. The use of guns is often automatically associated with the prevalence of violence. Because of this, advocates of gun control argue that lowering the prevalence of guns will decrease the number of violent crimes (Moorhouse and Wanner 103). Despite the range of gun control laws present, studies of gun control have not confirmed that it has any relation on violent crime. Furthermore, gun control takes away the ability of citizens to defend themselves. The longevity of guns, the prevalence of illegal caches of weapons and the lack of respect that criminals have for the law all contribute to gun control as a misguided and ineffective concept that has no effect on violent crime within the United States. Despite arguments to the contrary, gun control does not reduce the amount of violent crime in the United States. Throughout the United States, there are thousands of different gun control laws, which vary not only in the restrictions that they create, but also in how effectively they are enforced. Some laws act to restrict who can purchase guns, by creating purchasing permits, or requiring gun registration, others include safety training before purchase or background checks when a sale is occurring (Moorhouse and Wanner 104). Stories of the lack of logic in current gun control laws abound. A classic example of this is a man who keeps a gun in his house for his own protection, despite the fact that it is illegal. An intruder breaks into the man’s house, and makes a rush at the man, who then shoots the intruder. In many states in America, the man would face criminal charges, and this has happened many times (Wilson 1). This is one of the key arguments against gun control; it punishes the everyday citizens, while not effectively restricting criminals. After all, if a person is not afraid to break the law to rob a house, they are unlikely to be concerned about having an illegal gun. Thus, gun control does not result in less guns in the hands of criminals. The debate on gun control has spurred significant controversy about whether gun control laws are an effective method of reducing crime. Studies of gun control in the United States have mixed results. Most studies have concluded that gun control in the United States does not result in the reduction in violent crime (Moorhouse and Wanner 106). Despite the development of gun control laws, the amount of firearms owned privately has continued to steadily rise, but this has not been matched by the prevalence of violent crimes. Rates of violent crime in the United States have varied considerably (Jacobs 13). This suggests that ownership of guns has no effect on the rate of violent crime, implying that the logic behind gun control laws is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence against gun control is a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences. The report was 328 pages long, and contained information from close to 400 different sources as well as its own study. The study found that there was no evidence that gun control had any effect on reducing the amount of violent crime that occurs. Another study found that measures such as background checks for people purchasing guns are ineffective, as close to 80% percent of guns owned by criminals were purchased illegally (WND). There is no doubt that the United States has a serious problem with violent crime. Despite the comparatively low levels of crime in recent years, the United States still has more violent crime than other countries in the Western hemisphere, not only in terms of crimes committed with guns, but also for other types of violent crime. In fact, more than 90% of violent crimes that occur within the United States do not involve the use of any weapon (Jacobs 8-10). This suggests that gun control is an innately flawed concept because relies on the assumed relationship between the prevalence of guns and violent crime. If violent crime in the United States was the result of poor gun control, and too many people having access to guns, then criminal acts that used guns would be higher in prevalence compared to other forms of violent crime. Gun control acts to restrict the access that people have to guns, theoretically limiting both normal citizens and criminals. For people who have a tendency toward violent behavior or are criminally involved, even if they could not get access to a gun illegally, it is more likely that they would find an alternative method of committing the crime, rather than choosing not to do it. There are many other types of weapons that can be obtained even if gun control was strict. For example, knifes, fists or homemade explosives are all methods used to commit violence. As such, if gun control laws remained at its current levels, or became more prevalent in the United States, it is likely that violence would shift away from guns and toward other methods. Thus, no decrease in crime would be observed, suggesting that gun control is a misguided approach. One example of the ineffectiveness of gun control laws has been shown in Canada, where a 2009 bill attempted to remove the gun registry that had been in place. It was believed that the registry was ineffective at reducing crime, and highly inefficient. However, arguments against the bill suggest that removing the registry would compromise a system that is helping people (CBC News). This suggests that Canada recognizes something that the United States does not, that gun control is ultimately a waste of resources that provides little to no benefit. In contrast, the United States continues to develop more laws related to gun control, often related to increase in crime (Moorhouse and Wanner 103-05). However, the United States has a long way to go before it even honestly examines whether gun control is effective, let alone considers alternative approaches to reducing the prevalence of violent crime. Substantially increasing gun control is often difficult because of the political environment in the United States, and some authors have argued that the problem is that the measures incorporated into law are simply not strong enough to have any real effect on violent crime (Bogus 441-43). However, while the United States may not be able to instigate strong gun control measures, other countries are. An example of this is in Australia, which passed a firearms legislation in 1996, which entirely prohibited some types of guns and used a buy-back scheme to remove these guns from circulation. In addition, strict controls were developed for people to own firearms, including safe storage, a 28-day waiting period and the presence of a legitimate reason for owing the gun. Under these laws, a claim of self-defense is not sufficient to make an individual eligible for a gun purchase. Despite the large changes made by this legislation, which occurred across Australia, the effect that the laws had on deaths from guns was negligible (Baker and McPhedran 1-13). The case in Australia shows that even the successful implementation of strong gun control laws ultimately fails at producing any observable differences. This highlights the concept that gun control itself is ineffective, regardless of what country it is instigated in, or the level of its use. In the United States, the gun control debate often generates high levels of emotions, which results in many of truths about the issue being obscured. Because of this, the debate on gun control often shifts away from examinations of whether gun control is likely to be effective and what methods are the best to achieve the desired results (Wilson 6). Instead, debates often focus on the moral standpoints, with supporters of gun control arguing that people should not have such devastatingly violent weapons, and that restricting their use is the only method of making the country a better place. In contrast, opponents of gun control often focus on civil liberties, and the benefits gained from owning a gun, such as self-defense. Furthermore, it often becomes a significant political issue and can even have an effect on the outcome of elections (Bogus 441-43). Because of this, gun control has continued to increase, despite objections that this violates civil liberties, and is not effective at reducing the rate of violent crime. The ownership of guns also has another potential effect on crime rate that tends to be ignored by supporters of gun control. Owning a gun gives the person the ability to defend themselves against attackers, and may also act to deter people from committing crimes. A study of prison inmates found that 43% of participants had decided against committing a crime because their victim had a weapon (Jacobs 15). The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that American’s have the right to bear arms. Gun control effectively takes this right away, as it restricts many law abiding people from owning guns, or allows it only under certain circumstances. As such, it leaves people without an effective method of defending themselves, while those who use guns for violence often have little regard for the law. As such, gun control is not poor at stopping crime, but it also results in the victimization of innocent people, suggesting a negative social reason for its use. Throughout the United States, there are many examples of caches of illegal weapons. One of the reasons that gun control can never be effective in the United States is that it is not retrospective and as such, would have little effect on these caches of weapons. There is no way for the introduction of gun control laws to take guns out of the hands of violent people and criminals that already have them, mainly because determining where these guns are would be an impossible task. Guns are a long lasting asset and can be passed from one person to another relatively easily (Moorhouse and Wanner 122). Because of this, there will always be illegal guns for people to obtain if they want to. Furthermore, for people who strongly desire to commit violence, or are engaged in criminal activities, the fact that owning a gun in this way is illegal is not likely to be a strong deterrent. Gun control is an ineffective tool to use in the fight against crime. In the end, its use is counterproductive, as it restricts normal people from being able to defend themselves, making them vulnerable to criminals. Decades of gun control have done little to affect the escalating rate of crime, save lives, or make the streets safer. No matter how strong gun control laws are, they will not decrease gun use. Laws can always be circumvented, and people who use violence are unlikely to feel restricted by gun control laws. The statistics on violent crime in the United States make it clear that gun control has little effect. The United States has one of the highest rates of violent crime out of the Western world, suggesting that the current methods being used to reduce crime are ineffective. Gun control is a system that is based on assumptions, and desperately needs to be reevaluated. It is crucial that policy makers and researchers look beyond the emotions associated with gun control, and try to determine effective methods of reducing violent crime. References Baker, Jeanine, and Samara McPhedran. "Gun Laws and Sudden Death." British Journal of Criminology (2006): 1-15. Print. Bogus, Carl T. "Gun Control and America's Cities: Public Policy and Politics." Albany Government Law Review 1.2 (2008): 440-81. Print. CBC News. "New Federal Bill Would End Long-Gun Registry". 2009. (April 1): June 18 2012. . Jacobs, James B. Can Gun Control Work? Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. Moorhouse, John.C, and Brent Wanner. "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control." Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-24. Print. Wilson, Harry L. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007. Print. WND. "Gun Control Doesn't Reduce Crime, Say Studies". 2004. (30 December): June 18 2012. . Read More